AI Article Synopsis

  • The study examines the effectiveness of two next-generation detection systems, Cepheid GeneXpert IV and BioFire FilmArray 2.0, in detecting SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic amidst shortages of testing materials.
  • Researchers collected 1,080 specimens using different types of biosamples, including nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, saliva, and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, to compare the sensitivity and specificity of each system.
  • Findings revealed that the Cepheid platform was generally more sensitive than BioFire for certain biospecimens, while both platforms showed no significant differences when comparing NP swabs in saline versus viral transport media.

Article Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert IV and BioFire FilmArray 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection.

Methods: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire FilmArray 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays.

Results: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire . Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms.

Conclusion: The Cepheid and BioFire NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8993615PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24285DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cepheid genexpert
8
biofire filmarray
8
swabs vtm
8
swabs saline
8
saline nasal
8
nasal swabs
8
vtm saline
8
saliva testing
8
compared biofire
8
testing
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!